This may not be news to anyone who has blogged, but it seems to take a fair amount of effort, discipline and technical skill to produce a good blog. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about something completely different, you know a good blog when you see it. And like so many other things, looking good often looks desceptively easy...
I'm pretty low on the experience curve right now, but over time I want to include links, graphics, maybe even sound and video clips... If economists and statisticians can do it, a soldier should be able to do it, too!
At the same time, this blog is not intended to be an end in itself. No one who knows me will ever deny that I express my thoughts as clearly and forcefully as I can, but just spouting off my views into the digital cosmos has no real significance. Not even if readers throng to the site and praise my brilliance (some kind of mass psychosis, that would be!).
Instead, this blog is intended more as a mechanism to let me formulate my thoughts for publication as a single work -- a book to be generated from the blog, as it were. And the book is intended to provide readers with a structure for understanding problems and determining action, a structure that I don't see in place anywhere out there but possessing strengths that should prove self-evident (and not rely on the non-existant public standing of its author).
If that ever happens in any significant measure, then it is possible that someone with an obsessive-compulsive need to research irrelevant history may wind up reading this post. To that person, I hope you get some satisfaction out of reading this, and that it completes whatever picture you've created. If it is attractive, cool! If not, well, just keep it honest and you'll get no criticism from me.
Zum wohle!
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Peer Review
The controversy over the email correspondence between various scientists involved in research on human-caused global climate change points to an important matter of facts and assumptions, that peer review assures the reliability of a published research project.
But the record of this email traffic appears to refute that assumption. Scientists with a point of view, colluding with enough peers, can instead assure that peer-reviewed research contains a multitude of flaws: analysis that confounds cause with effect, that relies on doctored or fabricated data, and that describes the world in ways unsupported by the full weight of the evidence and even contrary to the simple application of logic.
I'm a lawyer, so I know something about this. My profession's shame is the way its members tend to manipulate the truth to suit the ends of their clients. We punt issues of fairness to a judge or jury, claiming that our job is to make the strongest case we can -- as long as we don't lie or cheat (as defined by our own special rules) -- and not to be fair to the other side.
But at least in litigation one side seldom has the power to keep the other side from presenting its case. That is not the case when scientists run amok. Telling the world to ignore "deniers," that "skeptics" are just shills for evil corporate interests, that the "science" is so "established" that no intelligent person could possibly disagree with certain conclusions, is the approach taken by leaders of a lynch mob, not of investigators of truth.
Lynch mobs are convinced they already know everything they need to know, that there is no other evidence they need to consider, and that they themselves have both the authority and the duty to act immediately. All of which is false.
Anyone presenting conclusions have a duty to present their facts and assumptions, and not only to accept but to seek out contrary views to evaluate and validate their understanding. Truth and wisdom stands on its own against all attacks, as long as the people examining the issue are themselves honest and sincere.
If the scientists investigating how the world's weather works were honest and fair, they would never have felt the need to hide their data, make false claims (the "hockey stick" fraud), attack other scientists, or propogandize the public.
It seems that in this age our culture has lost its moral compass. Lawyers and politicians may be more obvious examples of this, but they are not alone.
If peer review is to have a positive function, the purpose should be to validate the analysis and findings in the paper, to point out weak or faulty logic, clear misinterpretation of data, and so on. A paper should never be rejected simply because it doesn't fit in the existing doctrine -- in fact, an intelligent, coherent examination of matters from a perspective differing from the common wisdom can serve a solid purpose in either confirming what is known and accepted, in correcting errors in the common wisdom, or in highlighting issues that need further investigation. If this is not the point of peer review, then it serves no useful purpose.
But the record of this email traffic appears to refute that assumption. Scientists with a point of view, colluding with enough peers, can instead assure that peer-reviewed research contains a multitude of flaws: analysis that confounds cause with effect, that relies on doctored or fabricated data, and that describes the world in ways unsupported by the full weight of the evidence and even contrary to the simple application of logic.
I'm a lawyer, so I know something about this. My profession's shame is the way its members tend to manipulate the truth to suit the ends of their clients. We punt issues of fairness to a judge or jury, claiming that our job is to make the strongest case we can -- as long as we don't lie or cheat (as defined by our own special rules) -- and not to be fair to the other side.
But at least in litigation one side seldom has the power to keep the other side from presenting its case. That is not the case when scientists run amok. Telling the world to ignore "deniers," that "skeptics" are just shills for evil corporate interests, that the "science" is so "established" that no intelligent person could possibly disagree with certain conclusions, is the approach taken by leaders of a lynch mob, not of investigators of truth.
Lynch mobs are convinced they already know everything they need to know, that there is no other evidence they need to consider, and that they themselves have both the authority and the duty to act immediately. All of which is false.
Anyone presenting conclusions have a duty to present their facts and assumptions, and not only to accept but to seek out contrary views to evaluate and validate their understanding. Truth and wisdom stands on its own against all attacks, as long as the people examining the issue are themselves honest and sincere.
If the scientists investigating how the world's weather works were honest and fair, they would never have felt the need to hide their data, make false claims (the "hockey stick" fraud), attack other scientists, or propogandize the public.
It seems that in this age our culture has lost its moral compass. Lawyers and politicians may be more obvious examples of this, but they are not alone.
If peer review is to have a positive function, the purpose should be to validate the analysis and findings in the paper, to point out weak or faulty logic, clear misinterpretation of data, and so on. A paper should never be rejected simply because it doesn't fit in the existing doctrine -- in fact, an intelligent, coherent examination of matters from a perspective differing from the common wisdom can serve a solid purpose in either confirming what is known and accepted, in correcting errors in the common wisdom, or in highlighting issues that need further investigation. If this is not the point of peer review, then it serves no useful purpose.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Greetings!
I read several blogs regularly, written by people who are very intelligent, write rather well, and have impressive credentials. I claim none of these attributes -- if I possess them to any degree it will show in my work, if not, then my claims to the contrary would be both silly and futile.
Why "Facts and Assumptions"? It is hardly news that people argue and fight over differing views on various subjects. We can look at humanity's sorry history of wars, oppression, abuse, exploitation, subversion and violence to see how bad things can get. And compared with so much of history we have precious little reason to complain or worry today.
But doing well compared with the human environment that generated two world wars, our own Civil War, repeated episodes of economic upheaval, mass starvation and political collapse is pretty faint praise. And simply doing better by comparison is hardly a worthwhile aspiration.
We have tremendous potential as a nation, a culture, a civilization, a species. But to reach that potential we have to overcome weaknesses in how we deal with each other, how we analyze problems and how we reach understandings different from the past.
As Lincoln put it, past dogma is inadequate to the demands of the present. "We must think anew, and act anew," as he said. No matter that our ancestors worked wonders at times, the fact of the matter remains that they were also unable to deal with a multitude of problems that, to one degree or another, plague us today.
And thus this blog. When I worked as a military planner getting a heavy National Guard infantry division prepared to go to war in Iraq, I learned a great deal about a methodology called the "Military Decision Making Process," or MDMP. While it, too, has some shortcomings (like those that resulted in us being unprepared for events in Iraq after the collapse of the Baathist regime), it has tremendous strengths -- objectivity, thoroughness, honesty, realism, and a robust, practical, time-tested set of procedures built on this intellectual base that can be implemented by anyone, anywhere, under even the most challenging circumstances.
There is one step in these procedures that strikes me as both essential and practicable in getting past the apparently irreconciliable differences and annoying chatter about important issues today, whether health care, climate change, the economy, taxes, whatever.
That step is to identify and validate critical facts and assumptions. The media, politicians, commentators, even scholars and scientists, argue endlessly without every doing this. And the arguing continues because each group has its own version of facts and makes its own set of assumptions, while ignoring, denying or repudiating any contrary facts or assumptions. And because they seem to be locked into their respective positions, refusing to acknowledge validity in other views or flaws in their own, there can be no progress.
I hope this blog can help overcome that flaw in our common character. I believe that humanity is capable of tremendous progress, that everyone tries to do what they see as right (people with psychological disease aside). People err -- Goethe put the words in Faust's mouth, "Es irrt der Mensch solang er strebt," the person who strives will make mistakes -- and it takes an exercise of character to admit mistakes and move on!
Facts and assumptions. This is a step in a process for dealing with reality as it is. If you want to make meaningful change in the world, you have to deal with it as it is -- not how you think it is, not how you imagine it may be. Once you see thing clearly, in depth and detail, then you can engage in intelligent discussion about what needs to be done, by whom, how and when. If you don't do this, then you're just flapping your lips...
Identifying and validating facts and assumptions is challenging even inside a single military headquarters, with well-trained staff officers working on a well-defined mission. That is seldom if ever the case outside that environment -- which is where I expect readers (bless each and every one of you!) to be. Out there in the wider world there is far more complexity to deal with, in multiple dimensions.
And so in this blog I intend to develop this process, in depth and detail, for application in the wider world. I want to explore the qualities people need to bring to the table, and try to show how the process can work through analysis of various common issues that strike me as interesting.
I hope to pitch out new posts frequently, and practice what I preach as I do so. And I ask for a bit of patience and forebearance if I err -- we all know what Shakespeare had to say about both error and foregiveness! But I want the thoughts expressed here to be informative, constructive, challenging and stimulating.
So let's have at it!
Why "Facts and Assumptions"? It is hardly news that people argue and fight over differing views on various subjects. We can look at humanity's sorry history of wars, oppression, abuse, exploitation, subversion and violence to see how bad things can get. And compared with so much of history we have precious little reason to complain or worry today.
But doing well compared with the human environment that generated two world wars, our own Civil War, repeated episodes of economic upheaval, mass starvation and political collapse is pretty faint praise. And simply doing better by comparison is hardly a worthwhile aspiration.
We have tremendous potential as a nation, a culture, a civilization, a species. But to reach that potential we have to overcome weaknesses in how we deal with each other, how we analyze problems and how we reach understandings different from the past.
As Lincoln put it, past dogma is inadequate to the demands of the present. "We must think anew, and act anew," as he said. No matter that our ancestors worked wonders at times, the fact of the matter remains that they were also unable to deal with a multitude of problems that, to one degree or another, plague us today.
And thus this blog. When I worked as a military planner getting a heavy National Guard infantry division prepared to go to war in Iraq, I learned a great deal about a methodology called the "Military Decision Making Process," or MDMP. While it, too, has some shortcomings (like those that resulted in us being unprepared for events in Iraq after the collapse of the Baathist regime), it has tremendous strengths -- objectivity, thoroughness, honesty, realism, and a robust, practical, time-tested set of procedures built on this intellectual base that can be implemented by anyone, anywhere, under even the most challenging circumstances.
There is one step in these procedures that strikes me as both essential and practicable in getting past the apparently irreconciliable differences and annoying chatter about important issues today, whether health care, climate change, the economy, taxes, whatever.
That step is to identify and validate critical facts and assumptions. The media, politicians, commentators, even scholars and scientists, argue endlessly without every doing this. And the arguing continues because each group has its own version of facts and makes its own set of assumptions, while ignoring, denying or repudiating any contrary facts or assumptions. And because they seem to be locked into their respective positions, refusing to acknowledge validity in other views or flaws in their own, there can be no progress.
I hope this blog can help overcome that flaw in our common character. I believe that humanity is capable of tremendous progress, that everyone tries to do what they see as right (people with psychological disease aside). People err -- Goethe put the words in Faust's mouth, "Es irrt der Mensch solang er strebt," the person who strives will make mistakes -- and it takes an exercise of character to admit mistakes and move on!
Facts and assumptions. This is a step in a process for dealing with reality as it is. If you want to make meaningful change in the world, you have to deal with it as it is -- not how you think it is, not how you imagine it may be. Once you see thing clearly, in depth and detail, then you can engage in intelligent discussion about what needs to be done, by whom, how and when. If you don't do this, then you're just flapping your lips...
Identifying and validating facts and assumptions is challenging even inside a single military headquarters, with well-trained staff officers working on a well-defined mission. That is seldom if ever the case outside that environment -- which is where I expect readers (bless each and every one of you!) to be. Out there in the wider world there is far more complexity to deal with, in multiple dimensions.
And so in this blog I intend to develop this process, in depth and detail, for application in the wider world. I want to explore the qualities people need to bring to the table, and try to show how the process can work through analysis of various common issues that strike me as interesting.
I hope to pitch out new posts frequently, and practice what I preach as I do so. And I ask for a bit of patience and forebearance if I err -- we all know what Shakespeare had to say about both error and foregiveness! But I want the thoughts expressed here to be informative, constructive, challenging and stimulating.
So let's have at it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
